Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Das Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2012
W.P.No.10136/2011
21/02/2012
Shri Jitesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.K.Singh, learned PL for Respondents/ State.
Challenging the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer on 16.6.2009 (AnnexureP2) canceling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary and the order dated 18.4.2011 (AnnexureP5) passed by the Commissioner rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi in the year 1993 in Gram Panchayat Hardua Rauja and, thereafter, notified as a Secretary under Section 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. While petitioner was so working, it seems that on 3.6.2009, the Collector visited the village and met a villager, who made a complaint with regard to distribution of pension under the Social Security Pension Scheme. The Collector directed Respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the same. The Respondent No.4 conducted an exparte enquiry and submitted a report on 5.6.2009 pointing out certain inconfirmity. Based on the report of the Respondent No.4, services of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary have been terminated.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is clear that the services of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary are terminated on the allegations found to be proved in an enquiry conducted as contained in AnnexureP1. Admittedly, the said enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and no notice has been issued to the petitioner. Even, in doing so, the procedure in accordance with the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 for terminating the services from the post of Panchayat Karmi or Panchayat Secretary is not followed. A detailed procedure is laid down under the Rules, which has to be followed for imposing a punishment. The removal from service from the post of Panchayat Secretary is one of the punishments envisaged in the said rules and, therefore, in the light of the law laid down in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, I.L.R. (2008) M.P.1050, the action taken without conducting an enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules is illegal.
Even though respondents by filing reply have tried to demonstrate that petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Secretary by denotification after issuing showcause notice to him and for the same, following a procedure under Rule 7 of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 is not necessary, I am unable to accede to the aforesaid contention. In the case of Lalla Prasad (Supra) also, the employee concerned was denotified from the post of Panchayat Secretary by the Collector. In that case, it has been held by the Division Bench that even for removing a person from the post of the Panchayat Secretary, the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has to be followed, in this regard the principle laid down by the Division Bench in Para7 & 8 of the aforesaid judgment may be taken note of wherein it has been held that for removing an employee from the post of Panchayat Secretary if Rules of 1999 have not been followed, the same is illegal. In the present case also, petitioner is removed from the post of Panchayat Secretary and in doing so only showcause notice was issued, how the requirement of conducting a detailed enquiry is according to the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 was not followed, therefore, in the light of the law laid down in the case of Lalla Prasad (Supra), the action cannot be upheld. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Without adverting to consider all these legal question, dismissing the appeal on the technical ground of delay was also not proper and in doing so, the Commissioner has committed grave error.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned dated 16.6.2009 passed by the Chief Executive Officer and 18.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner are quashed, petitioner is directed to be taken back on the post of Panchayat Secretary and liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed fresh in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd